Mac Resurgence: Is it all About the Getting Along?

If you spend a reasonable amount of time reading the Mac web you’ll likely notice some patterns emerging. While the content is admirably variable, there are some recurrent themes; things that you’ll see with a certain amount of regularity. The top three predictable Mac articles are: “Windows Sucks”, “The Mac is Awesome” and “Why isn’t Apple’s Market Share Higher?” The stories are written with a wide range of abilities; some are taut and insightful, while others are hoping to reach the status of pure drivel (on a personal note, all my writings are striving to reach the level of “drivel”).

The first two “go to” stories are mere restatements of the same idea: the Mac is just wayyy better than Windows. Interesting thoughts to be sure but more of an unquantifiable opinion containing nothing concrete enough to dissect. Without regard to eloquence, we’re interested in that third story. That is where the interest lies today: Mac market share.

For seemingly eons, Mac writers have been writing stories about why the market share is so low. They cite a myriad of reasons: Macs are too expensive; people see Macs as some hippy artist computer that is little more than a toy; not enough games; no customizable mid-range model; the too prevalent all in one form factor; software incompatibility; the stooge-like adherence of the masses to the Windows platform; etc. The list goes on to whatever arbitrary length one desires. And the arguments are of interest, there are valid points, but the points don’t matter as much as the reality and that was, for the longest time, a very flat market share.

After reasons have been discussed and noted, it is time for the apologizers to kick into high gear. They’ll argue that the stats are skewed (Macs last longer); that market share doesn’t matter (Apple makes plenty of money); or the markets aren’t comparable (businesses opt for PCs with astonishing regularity). Again, interesting points, but the reality is that as far as market share goes, it doesn’t matter.

Then we finally come to the part where the argument changes to why Macs are really going to catch on. The G5 chip and 64-bit computing were supposed to propel Mac sales into the stratosphere. The architecture change sold a few supercomputers. The G4 was going to decimate PC sales because it was just so much faster than a Pentium. No effect. iMovie was going to rock the world of home movie making - everyone would be snapping up Macs. The list continues: iLife, iPod halo effect, unique planetary alignments. All these things were supposed to help the Mac get mainstreamed again (whatever that means). So far, it hasn’t happened.

All that said, the Mac might be catching on. Last quarter saw Apple swipe a very respectable 12% of the laptop market. The introduction of the new Mac Pros might help boost sales further (can’t hurt - the G5 towers were selling like Vespa Scooters at a Harley rally). However, more telling than the number of computers sold is the suddenly hot software.

Witness the miracle that is Parallels. The nifty Mac program that runs Windows on your Intel Mac has sold an astonishing 100,000 copies. That may not sound like many when compared to, say, the number of copies Photoshop sells, but consider that since the introduction of Intel based machines this year, Apple has likely sold somewhere around 2.5 million Macs. That means that 2.5% of people using Intel Macs (actually, the number is higher) are willing to pony up $80 to use Windows on their Macs.

More evidence? Consider Boot Camp, Apple’s not so ideal solution to cross platforming the Mac. Sure Boot Camp is great for games, but since you have to restart your computer to get back to the OS Xy goodness, the solution is a bit cumbersome for someone who wants to run Microsoft Access. Boot Camp, the solution to turn your beautiful Mac into a generic PC, has been downloaded an untold number of times.*

Taking all the above into account, it seems that the years of angst spent wondering why more folks weren’t using a Mac were wasted. It wasn’t the price, the styling, or the chips; it was that the Mac wasn’t PC enough. With Intel inside that has all changed. The Mac is now as PC as you want to be and, for many, that is quite a bit. While the increased flexibility is alluring for some, there is a downside for the long time Mac watcher: No more Steve Jobs hosted Photoshop bake-offs. That will be a very sad loss indeed.

*Where untold means I couldn’t find the reference. It has been downloaded a lot.